Skip to main content

About your Search

20121129
20121207
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
the white house in 1988. but just two years later, the reagan deficits were skyrocketing and president bush was forced to change his most famous line. >> long and bitter battle over the budget officially ended last night. president bush put his signature on the deficit reduction package, including $140 billion in tax increases. >> tax increases. that was a turning point for the modern republican party. the right wing went crazy. and george bush lost re-election. since then the party's been committed to never compromising on the tax issue, no matter the deficit. no congressional republican has voted for an increase in taxes since 1990. think about it. for nearly a quarter of a century, no new income taxes. in the current congress, 236 house republicans vowed never to raise taxes. 40 gop senators also kept that pledge. even president george w. bush, the man who got us into two wars we didn't pay for. the president who exploded our deficit. he insisted the solution to our problems were more tax cuts. president clinton handed him a $236 billion surplus. a surplus. and left office with a $1.2 tr
to do with the deficit. social security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. if you reduce the outgo of social security, that money would not go into the general fund to reduce the deficit. it would go into the social security trust fund. so social security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or lowering the deficit. >> social security has nothing to do with the deficit. it's not president obama saying that. it's president reagan, their hero. and he also said this. >> we're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allowed the truly wealthy to avoid pay their fair share. in theory, some of those loopholes were understandable but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing while a bus driver was paying 10% of their salary. that's crazy. do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes or less? >> a millionaire should pay less in taxes than a bus driver. that's what this whole debate in washington right now is all about. joining me now is e.j. dionne from "the washington post." thank
as part of a long-term deficit reduction. if we don't ask higher income people to pay more, we're going to have to take it out on everybody else and the president is clear, you cannot continue to play political gains with the full faith and credit of the united states debt and so that was all part of the plan the president has put forward. >> now, with all of the talk of divide, politico is, however, reporting that there is some framework of a deal already taking shape. let me give you what they are saying. and the piece says, there is no chance taxes are not going to go up for people making north of $250,000 and virtually no chance that doesn't include their tax rates, too. is there a framework of a deal that you believe we can come together or are we still very much divided in terms of parties in the congress? >> well, i think it's premature to say that there's a deal in place. even the framework of a deal in place. but i agree with the politico reporting to the extent they concluded that higher income individuals are going to be paying more and that tax rates have to go up. because t
the deficit and job crisis that we continue to want to tackle. so i think you do see him saying, hey, i have this idea. we're going to take it by the storm. it didn't work. the president is still standing and moving forward. and i think there's some in his party who are eager to try to get a balanced approach and prevent us from going off this cliff which would be a very serious thing and we're right up against it. >> don't they have, joe, a real civil war going on in the republican party when you have on one hand sarah palin open fending the tea party's role saying on facebook, for all this new talk about how the gop needs a populous movement, it would do them good to remember they already have them. it's called a tea party movement and it won for them the majority they now enjoy in the house. this is palin. but on the other side, the "new york times" says today that boehner has consolidated his grip on republicans in the house. the times says many house republicans appear to view mr. boehner with the same sort of respect that a dark children award their parents for the sage counsel they ig
of living, while the rich are getting richer, who should pick up the burden of deficit reduction? second of all, in terms of social security, social security hasn't contributed one nickel. >> at all. >> by the payroll tax. so why don't you want to drag social security in? thirdly, these people are talking about, if people can believe it, lowering, lowering tax rates for large corporations. what sense is that? the truth is, what the american people want and they have said in the election, you know, obama did win a major victory and the issue being debated was whether the wealthy are going to start paying their fair share of tacks what poll after poll says do not cut can social security and medicare and medicaid. ask the wealthy and large corporations to start paying their taxes. further, let's not forget, as a result of these rather bad agreements in 2010 and 2011, though i voted against, we've already cut a trillion dollars in programs for working families. >> you're right. the american people have said in the election as well as in the polling, 82% oppose reducing social security benefi
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)